TheFishPlate
Member
So the moral of the story is:
1: Have a PSV, and ask away for remuneration for the travel time.
...or...
2: Negotiate a higher rate for the hours on site in order to cover the driving aspect, effectively hiding it, whilst paying the same amount of tax as you would for overtly paid travel time anyway.
Thanks for this discussion guys, as it is interesting. Here I was thinking the industry is just shocking for not paying it's drivers for what is most definitely working time, whereas they are actually constrained by a ruling I wasn't aware of.
Yes it seems companies may seek to hide behind it carte blanche, thus aiding bottom line; but if it really is completely down to that ruling then what can one do. In my uninformed opinion it would seem that somewhere down the line that this ruling is surely facilitating the breaking of some other working rights legislation.
The only aspect of the wording that seems out of place is "operate a smaller vehicle carrying passengers and charging separate fares for the journey". I wouldn't say that simply paying a driver the same hourly wage for their travel time (since they are working and the passengers not) constitutes "charging separate fares for the journey"; separate fares at least on the face of it appearing to reference different fares relative to each passenger. However if it is seen that 2 hours travel time at £14 an hour is that "separate fare", despite it being the same as the 8 hours on shift at £14 an hour...then my reasoning is void.
And now I can understand why companies must have it defined as part of duties, despite however those duties then being undertaken whilst unpaid, in turn perhaps failing to satisfy minimum wage regs. Who would agree explicitly to work for nothing?....people who need to keep agencies onside to obtain work. Catch 22.